I don't understand the point at all. The news of the death of 10k people comes after the fact. Planning a strategy to deal with financial disaster obviously comes prior to the fact.

I might understand the point if the 2003 situation was "President Chirac stays on vacation after hearing of 10000 French citizens threatened with death". Although I suspect he probably would have stayed.

Yes, I know, but if Sarkozy could get back, why not Chirac who was vacationing in Canada at that time? It seems like I remember people talking about how it was hard to get back from vacation in 2003 or that it was something that wasn't done. I was in France once in August and everyone took off on vacation like it was a religion. I just think it's odd that with money, they can come back, but with people, especially the elderly, not so much.

HMT,

What are you talking about? People knew that the elderly were dying for weeks and no one did a thing. It didn't happen in a day. Few people came back, even when they knew their family members were in trouble. It was all over the news for a long time.

I never was lead to believe socialists cared for people or money. And, technically, not even power. They care mostly about how things are, or are supposed to be. It's those silly other things (people, money, power) that trip them up through their lusts and anger about things not working out. They just never could quite kill enough witnesses to make it seem (be, if no one remains knows) kosher. If nothing else, those in power who perpetrated the evil knew or know.

we forget that a large part of this race of people were supporting hitler's movements toward england during the war, and that they piss in the streets, don't wash regularly and consider slugs a delicacy...and they have the audacity to criticize american foreign policy.

in canada we have to deal with their bastard cousins holding the entire country economic and social hostage over their unreasonable language and financial demands...so this sort of thing is no surprise to me.

meanwhile in england terrorists are slowly but surely shutting the country down. already one football match has been cancelled, an exhibition game between england and holland. now, with the top professional league preparing to start this week-end, games are being postponed there also.

time to get the army into the streets, but liberals (socialists) will wring their hands and lament the poor poor who are really victims in all this because they can`t have the affluent have.

OK, you've lost me... Regarding Sarkozy: I thought he was considered right wing (by French standards if not ours) and while he may have been Minister of the Interior circa 2003, there isn't a whole hell of a lot the government could or should do about the fact that most French don't have A/C. Right?

Now this statement: "I thought that "socialists" were supposed to care more about people than money. Or is this just a lie? "

I think everyone here pretty much agrees that everything leftists say is 'just a lie'.

Quite. The socialist candidate in the 2007 presidential election was Ségolène Royal - she was defeated by the right-wing candidate Sarkozy. Nor was there a socialist president in power at the time of the 2003 heatwave - the socialist candidate in 2002 was Lionel Jospin, but he was defeated by the right-wing candidate Jacques Chirac.

Here's a radical thought - if you want to know how "socialists" behave, how about looking at the behaviour of socialists?